JUGGERNAUT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 No one's suggesting he be the 5th starter. All I'm saying is that as a starter he performed as good in the NL as Garland did in the AL. That's a good thing to have. Likewise he served as a closer for SFG. Another good thing to have. So we have a reasonable option as a backup starter & backup closer in a very dependable long relief guy. I really hope JonG improves in 2005. I would like him to prove to the world that he can really be a solid #3/#4 guy. This is really his last chance. If he doesn't do it this year then he'll be nothing more than a #5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) No one's suggesting he be the 5th starter. All I'm saying is that as a starter he performed as good in the NL as Garland did in the AL. That's a good thing to have. Likewise he served as a closer for SFG. Another good thing to have. So we have a reasonable option as a backup starter & backup closer in a very dependable long relief guy. I really hope JonG improves in 2005. I would like him to prove to the world that he can really be a solid #3/#4 guy. This is really his last chance. If he doesn't do it this year then he'll be nothing more than a #5. And that's the difference. Hermanson in the NL vs. Garland in the AL. If they both pitched in different leagues, Garland would have much better stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 11, 2005 -> 11:50 PM) Hey just because you don't understand that a starter's value is equal to runs surrendered per start (quality vs poor starts) is no reason to get upset. Yes Jon pitches in the much tougher AL & at the Cell. Ok, I'll grant you that. It's as good a reason to explain his mediocrity as anything else. So wait -- was it Hermanson's 7 quality starts last season -- a qaulity start percentage of 39% compared to Garlands 16 quality starts -- a quality start percentage of 48% -- That must be what you are talking about. Or maybe it was Hermanson's 2 quality starts in 2003 -- qaulity start percentage of 33% Or that he only started one game while sucking it up for the BoSox -- In the last three seasons Hermanson has 9 quality starts -- Garland had 16 just last season, and 47 for the last three seasons --- If it's R/S that you value, Garland is the clear winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Let's look at the reality of what it takes to win a division with a 70M payroll. There are 6 months to the season. A team must average 15-16 wins a month. That leaves a cushion of 10-11 loses per month. That's difficult to begin with. If a team has 15 loses in 1 month than it can only afford to lose 5-6 in another month. An even harder task to accomplish. That is why month to month statistics matter. You need to put together a team that is consistent enough in pitching, hitting, & defense to win 15-16 games a month. A player that hit's 324 one month & 182 the next is not going to help you do that. A player that has an era < 4 1 month & an era > 5 the next isn't going to help either. It would be better to have a player that avg's a 4.50 era month to month. Take it a step further. If all 5 starters on the sox average 10 bad starts a year then for the most part that's 50 losses right there. That leaves you with about 20 losses remaining if you want to win a division. If 5R+ is a bad start for a starter, then you need the good majority of his remaining starts to be 3R- to win 92 of the remaining 112. That means fewer than 4 non-quality starts per starter for the remaining 92 games. Jon had 9. Simply put a rotation is allowed betw 45-50 bad starts, & 20-25 non-quality starts. That leaves 92 quality starts. You can't win a division w/out it. If Jon is going to consume 9 of the non-quality starts allowed, then someone else has to pick up his slack. I don't know enough about the SFG to fathom why they moved Herm out of the rotation. Maybe they had a pressing need at closer. All I do know is that if you look at the starts he did have he managed 10 quality starts, 3 non-q starts, & 5 bad starts. Garland managed 15 quality starts, 9 non-q starts, & 10 bad starts. So Herm gave the SFG a 10-8 split & Jon gave the CWS a 15-19 split. Herm was hit & miss in Jul before being moved to the pen. Jul 3 v OAK 7ip/0er dominant Jul 8 v ARI 6ip/5er bad Jul 18 @COL 5ip/3er ok Jul 23 @STL 6.2ip/2er dominant JUl 28 @SD 5.1ip/6er bad That certainly suggests he was moved to the pen out of need & not because he failed as a starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Someone changed the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 If Hermanson can step into the rotation if someone goes down, and perform at Garland's level then we'll be ok. The fact you guys are debating this is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 SScho: 0r 0, 1r 3, 2r 2, 3r 4, 4r 4, 5r 3, 6r 1, 8r 1, 9r 1 9 qs, 4 nqs, 6 bad starts. 9-10 split. But he went down Aug 4. A 4 month player. The guy has been plagued by injuries his whole career. If you use him as a starter he won't last. If you use him as a reliever he's not as effective. There is a risk with Herm, but I think that risk is less than most NL pitchers because he plays in the NLW. COL is effective at skewing the numbers enough to give a better idea of what they guy will do in the AL. What I like most about Herm's starts is that there is consistency month to month. Apr 2 qs, 1 bad May 3 qs, 1 nqs Jun 3 qs, 2 nqs, 1 bad Jul 3 qs, 2 bad If he were to do that for us in the event El-Duque went down after Jul, that would still give us 6 qs the rest of the way. Only 4 bad starts. We can still win with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 When I said I'd rather have SS than DH, I was not talking about using as a starter. Let him be LR and mop up. But in the event you need 2 or 3 spot starts from time to time, he'd be effective if healthy. That's not pulling a full load as a starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 01:10 AM) SScho: 0r 0, 1r 3, 2r 2, 3r 4, 4r 4, 5r 3, 6r 1, 8r 1, 9r 1 9 qs, 4 nqs, 6 bad starts. 13-6 split. But he went down Aug 4. A 4 month player. The guy has been plagued by injuries his whole career. If you use him as a starter he won't last. If you use him as a reliever he's not as effective. For someone who keeps spitting out stats you sure do miss the big picture an awful lot. Not as effective as a reliever? 3.95ERA .249BAA from the pen compared with 5.48ERA .283BAA as a starter (last 3 seasons)-- Seems to me that he's much more effective as a reliever. Plus he's got a career WHIP and BAA of 1.19 and .237 respectively, against lefties -- I'd say that he'd make a very effective LOOGY. Edited January 12, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 For someone who keeps spitting out stats you sure do miss the big picture an awful lot. Not as effective as a reliever? 3.95ERA .249BAA from the pen compared with 5.48ERA .283BAA as a starter (last 3 seasons)-- Seems to me that he's much more effective as a reliever. Plus he's got a career WHIP and BAA of 1.19 and .237 respectively, against lefties -- I'd say that he'd make a very effective LOOGY. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here we go again. What is most important for a RP is not surrendering runs. That's there job. If they need to walk a guy to get that job done so be it. Herm RP 0R 23, 1R 2, 2R 2, 4R 2 He failed 6 out of 29 appearances. I would call that effective. You can scale that to 12 out of 60 to see just how much. SSch RP 03: 0r 39, 1r 10, 2r 7, 3r 1, 4r 2 He failed 20 out of 59 appearances. I don't know if I would call that effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 G'night all. We can continue this debate at a later time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 01:36 AM) exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 01:30 AM) Here we go again. What is most important for a RP is not surrendering runs. That's there job. If they need to walk a guy to get that job done so be it. Herm RP 0R 23, 1R 2, 2R 2, 4R 2 He failed 6 out of 29 appearances. I would call that effective. You can scale that to 12 out of 60 to see just how much. SSch RP 03: 0r 39, 1r 10, 2r 7, 3r 1, 4r 2 He failed 20 out of 59 appearances. I don't know if I would call that effective. Traslation: 2002-2004 as a reliever: Hermanson: 5.61ERA -- mostly in the NL/pitching parks Schoeneweis: 3.95ERA -- mostly in the AL/hitters parks Yep Hermanson did a great job of not surrendering runs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 06:30 PM) Here we go again. What is most important for a RP is not surrendering runs. That's there job. If they need to walk a guy to get that job done so be it. Don't forget Hermanson walked 3 guys straight against the Dodgers in that end of season series that pretty much killed the season for the Giants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvjeremylv Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 11, 2005 -> 09:46 PM) Did you really want to go there? JonudyG 04: June 6.82ERA, 7HR, 5GS, 229BA Aug 6.14ERA, 12HR, 6GS, 297BA Jonudy's Sep wasn't much better. *sigh* Nice #5 we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 04:01 AM) *sigh* Nice #5 we have. His era was better than league average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 09:01 PM) *sigh* Nice #5 we have. Should I start mentioning the other #5's in this division? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 04:03 AM) Should I start mentioning the other #5's in this division? Even if we got a list from the entire major leagues, the list would be small, very small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Didn't we get Hermanson as a late innings man? If so, what's the point of this thread? Neither have similiar roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P-Pod Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I would pick Hermanson because he's more realiable than ShoE... ShoE just didnt fit well in the rotation but was a godd pen guy, he just wanted to start. Im glad we are giving Hermanson this chance to help solidify our pen. see you in Toronto ShoE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 hermanson because shoney complained about being in te bullpen and hermanson can go longer innings and is better, and has a cool goatee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I guess I'm the only one that appreciated what Schoney has to offer. Okay. So be it. I hope everyone else is right and I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) I guess I'm the only one that appreciated what Schoney has to offer. Okay. So be it. I hope everyone else is right and I'm wrong. Gene picked him over Dustin a couple posts above your first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 11:57 AM) Gene picked him over Dustin a couple posts above your first. Cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.